View Poll Results: Kill 1 to save 1,000?

Voters
615. You may not vote on this poll
  • Kill 1; 1,000 live.

    451 73.33%
  • Don't kill 1; 1,000 die

    164 26.67%
Page 3 of 16 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
5
13
... LastLast
  1. #41
    Pandaren Monk
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,933
    Quote Originally Posted by Felfury View Post
    Ironically, if the world lived by US consumption standards it could only support at most 3 billion people, but if the world lived like China or India it could support over 13 billion. So while the population in western countries isn't as dense as other parts of the world their population is still just as stressful on resources.
    The problem is that everyone in China, India and Africa want to live at US consumption standards. If they ever achieve those objectives, the world will not be able to sustain it.

    2 things are therefore necessary:
    • The US needs to control how much it consumes per person.
    • China, India and Africa need to control their population growth.

    China is at least addressing their population issues, but for the rest it is a case of epically racing towards disaster...

  2. #42
    Elemental Lord Elim Garak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    DS9
    Posts
    8,427
    Depends...
    I wouldn't kill 1 scientist for even 1000000000 rednecks.

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Ace Ventura View Post
    /threadhijack

    If you could travel in time and you meet a young painter in Paris, named Adolf Hitler. With all you know, would you kill him? And possibly end up in old-time-jail?
    No. The world was going to end up in war one way or another and that particular war sped up the creation of the atom bomb - a weapon that has maintained *relative* world peace for 60 years.

    Plus ya know, I wouldn't go to paris again ever, what a shit hole.

  4. #44
    Maybe u need to read it says KILL 1 guy and save 1000 or let him live and he kills a 1000 people and who is that 1 guy and who are all those other 1000 people maybe their all murderes would u let them live then



    there needs to be a third option u dont care

  5. #45
    Neither, I would do it like Sam and Dean in supernatural, find a way to save them all

  6. #46
    what if the 1 person is yourself?

  7. #47
    Legendary! Korgoth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Barbaria
    Posts
    6,212
    Quote Originally Posted by Ace Ventura View Post
    /threadhijack

    If you could travel in time and you meet a young painter in Paris, named Adolf Hitler. With all you know, would you kill him? And possibly end up in old-time-jail?
    Butterfly effect. So No. You wouldnt have been born, and the world ends in 1968 in a triple nuclear war between the US, Russia, and Germany.
    "Gamer" is not a bad word. I identify as a gamer. When calling out those who persecute and harass, the word you're looking for is "asshole." @_DonAdams
    When you see someone in a thread making the same canned responses over and over, click their name, click view forum posts, and see if they are a troll. Then don't feed them.

  8. #48
    Very interesting lecture on discussed theme:

  9. #49
    I would say kill 1 to save 1000, but then again... if I was the 1, I`d say no. Funny how that works, isn`t it? The real question is would that 1 person give their life for 1000 other people.

    no life is worth more than another, but are a 1000 lives worth more than 1? interesting.

  10. #50
    Mechagnome beneholio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Graz, Austria
    Posts
    736
    Killing someone is never a good idea. NEVER!
    Take A Walk On The Wild Side

  11. #51
    I'd let 1000 die (not kill them myself) if it'd save young children with bright futures. That is, 1000 people that are going to die very soon like in 2 weeks or so, like old people and maybe african people that suffer from aids, to young children that has the opportunity to get their life back and contribute to the future.

    While this may seem harsh, we have to take into consideration that the youngsters are our future, and that the world suffer from over-population.

  12. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by ag666 View Post
    Depends...
    I wouldn't kill 1 scientist for even 1000000000 rednecks.
    I would kill 1000000000 scientists for one redneck though.

  13. #53
    I'd kill a guy to even save one friend.

  14. #54
    The political correct anwser is no, you shoudnt kill anyone, and everyone would say that face2face. But as shown by the poll, when asked anom 72.00% is saying yes.
    Experiments have shown that aprox 4 of 5 would act upon it and actualy kill the 1 to save the 5 if put in the situation whit no other option.
    What you've just wrote is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul!

  15. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Tartilus View Post
    I'd absolutely kill one to save a thousand, and I don't understand the deontological thinking that leads to any other decision. There probably is a point where my own guilt and trauma would come into play, but I'm not certain that it would offset even one additional life; which is to say, if you asked me to kill one person in order to save two people, I'd almost certainly do that too. I just don't value my own unhappiness with being a murderer over the life of even one person, and certainly not over the lives of 999.

    Now, of course, I'm speaking in the hypothetical as regards my teleological morality. In practice, if you asked me to say, kill a family member, less practical aspects would come into play. That's not to say I wouldn't do it, only that I'm not asserting that I'm incapable of making irrational decisions for personal reasons. I like to think I wouldn't, but I've got insufficient data to make a firm case either way.
    Yeah, that idea bugs the hell out of me too.
    I mean, well let's just assume that it's one mass murderer that is gonna kill 1000 innocent people , not some either complex scenario that is gonna affect you decision.
    Somehow it just seems to me that the people with the denotological thinking are so self centered, worried about the blood on their hands, worried about their own moral ethics and such kind of stuff they are not willing to sacrifices for 1000 lives. Heck, maybe killing that guy is the wrong decision and one might be traumatize and thrown inside a mental hospital, but that's still 1 dead, 1 insane vs 1000 lives.

  16. #56
    Depends on who the one is who has to die, im not gonna kill someone i know for 1000 strangers, let em have it.
    Trylb / Galesin
    Winners never quit, Quitters never win
    Nobody Said It Was Easy

  17. #57
    Personal opinion about it....Its all based on who you lose,who you save and whats on the line.Example...would you kill a loved one to save a thousands?Just depends on the situation.

  18. #58
    High Overlord Laríen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Wales.
    Posts
    163
    Survival of the fittest. Whatever happens it meant to.
    Quote Originally Posted by Azurenys
    Go raid for some sense of humour.
    We all know what to do, but no one does it.

  19. #59
    Brewmaster Aristeia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    1,493
    Then after you kill that one person you are informed that you didn't actually save anyone by killing them.

    Survival of the fittest. Whatever happens it meant to.
    That is a butchery of the meaning of that phrase.
    The earth is not a cold dead place

  20. #60
    Why isn't there an option to kill both 1 and 1000?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •